Paul R. Brewer

Values, Political Knowledge, and Public Opinion about Gay Rights: A Framing-Based Account

This study examines how political knowledge has shaped the effects of two values-egalitarianism and traditional morality-on American public opinion about gay rights and whether media framing accounts for the role that knowledge has played. An analysis of mass media coverage during the peak years of the debate over gay rights (1990-97) showed that the implications of moral traditionalism were virtually undisputed in this debate, whereas both sides laid claim to egalitarianism. Analysis of American National Election Studies survey data demonstrated that in 1992 and 1996 the impact of moral traditionalism on public opinion grew stronger as political knowledge increased, whereas the impact of egalitarianism did not vary across levels of knowledge. Thus, the results suggest that the extent to which political knowledge moderates a values effect on opinion can depend on whether public debate provides an undisputed frame or competing frames for that value. One could, in turn, frame the implications of this finding for democratic politics in more than one way

Value Words and Lizard Brains: Do Citizens Deliberate About Appeals to Their Core Values?

Political elites often present citizens with frames that define issues in terms of core values. This study tests two competing accounts of how citizens might process such frames. According to the “passive receiver” thesis, citizens process elite frames automatically, without engaging in critical thought. In contrast, the “thoughtful receiver” thesis holds that the impact of frames may depend on how favorably or unfavorably citizens respond to them. An experiment in value framing produced evidence more consistent with the thoughtful receiver thesis: The message that welfare reform is “tough love” influenced opinion only among those it did not anger, whereas the message that welfare reform is “cruel and inhumane” produced an effect only among those who judged it to be strong. More generally, these findings suggest that active processing of frames may limit the power of elite framing.

Public Opinion, the War in Iraq, and Presidential Accountability

How do citizens hold their leader accountable during an ongoing war? The authors distinguish between two models of accountability—the “decision maker” and “managerial” models—and investigate their implications in the context of the current war in Iraq. They employ a novel measurement model and a database of survey marginals to estimate weekly time series of aggregate beliefs about various aspects of the war. Consistent with the “decision maker” model, they find that shifts in aggregate support for the war have a greater impact on presidential approval than do equivalent shifts in perceptions of war success or approval of the president’s handling of the war. Conversely, aggregate perceptions of success are more responsive to casualties and key events than are aggregate beliefs about the war’s merits. This suggests that the link from casualties and events to presidential approval is less direct than previously assumed.

Mock News and Democracy: Analyzing The Daily Show

The Daily Show is a television program that uses “fake” news stories and real guest interviews to mock the substance and form of traditional television news programs. A content analysis examined the news stories and interviews in 52 episodes of The Daily Show from early 2005. Of the 222 news stories in these episodes, more than half addressed political topics; a fourth did so using issue frames. Almost half of the stories addressed world affairs. A smaller—but nonetheless substantial—percentage addressed the news media. Many of the 52 interviews also addressed politics, world affairs, and the news media. These findings, taken in conjunction with findings regarding the effects of “soft news” media, suggest that The Daily Show may have the potential to educate viewers about politics (including policy issues), draw their attention to events in world affairs, and encourage them to think critically—or perhaps cynically—about traditional news.

The Oprah Factor: The Effects of a Celebrity Endorsement in a Presidential Primary Campaign

In 2007, popular daytime talk show host Oprah Winfrey endorsed Barack Obama, a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. This study uses data from an experiment to examine the impact of news about her endorsement. Exposure to such news did not influence the extent to which participants held favorable opinions toward Obama or the extent to which they saw him as likable. On the other hand, reading about the endorsement did lead participants to see Obama as more likely to win the nomination and to say that they would be more likely to vote for him. These findings suggest that research on celebrity endorsements should consider not only effects on candidate support but also subtler effects, such as those on viability assessments.

Investigating CSI: portrayals of DNA testing on a forensic crime show and their potential effects.

The popularity of forensic crime shows such as CSI has fueled debate about their potential social impact. This study considers CSI’s potential effects on public understandings regarding DNA testing in the context of judicial processes, the policy debates surrounding crime laboratory procedures, and the forensic science profession, as well as an effect not discussed in previous accounts: namely, the show’s potential impact on public understandings of DNA and genetics more generally. To develop a theoretical foundation for research on the “CSI effect,” it draws on cultivation theory, social cognitive theory, and audience reception studies. It then uses content analysis and textual analysis to illuminate how the show depicts DNA testing. The results demonstrate that CSI tends to depict DNA testing as routine, swift, useful, and reliable and that it echoes broader discourses about genetics. At times, however, the show suggests more complex ways of thinking about DNA testing and genetics.

Media Use and Public Perceptions of DNA Evidence

This study uses survey data to examine how various forms of media use are related to public perceptions of DNA evidence, including self-perceived understanding of DNA, perceptions of DNA evidence as reliable, weight attached to DNA evidence (or the absence thereof) in jury decision making, and support for a national DNA databank.The hypotheses build on cultivation theory, priming theory, and research regarding the “CSI effect.” The findings indicate that overall television viewing, crime television viewing, and news media use predict perceptions of DNA evidence. Moreover, a question-order experiment produced evidence that priming thoughts about media can influence such perceptions.

Whose Science Do You Believe? Explaining Trust in Sources of Scientific Information About the Environment

Given that trust plays a key role in the communication of scientific information about the environment to the public, this study examines what explains trust in specific sources of such information. In doing so, it analyzes whether—and, if so, how—political ideology, support for environmental regulation, religiosity, trust in people, and trust in government predict trust in scientists, the Environmental Protection Agency, environmental organizations, news media, and science media. It also examines whether trust in scientists is associated with trust in the other sources in light of how each of the latter draws on the credibility of the former.

Sore Losers: News Frames, Policy Debates, and Emotions

This study examined whether news framing of policy debates shapes audience members’ emotions. An experiment revolving around the issue of campaign finance reform tested the effects of conflict and substance coverage on anger and disgust among participants. Conflict coverage produced a conditional effect on these emotions, whereas substance coverage did not. Specifically, the extent to which conflict coverage provoked anger and disgust increased with prior support for the losing side of the debate (in this case, the pro-campaign finance reform side). Such effects may carry implications for political journalism and democratic politics.

A Panel Study of Media Effects on Political and Social Trust after September 11, 2001

The authors examine the relationship between media consumption and political trust, social trust, and confidence in governmental institutions in the year following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This period provides a unique opportunity to explore the effects of media use on trust, given that political and social trust surged in the immediate aftermath only to decline in the months that followed. Using data from a panel survey, the authors find that television news use was associated with higher levels of trust in government and confidence in institutions during the surge that followed the terrorist attacks. Individual-level change in trust and confidence over the year that followed was not, however, attributable to media use or changes in media use. In the case of social trust, the results suggest that television news and newspaper use were not associated with social trust in the immediate aftermath but were associated with individual-level change in social trust over the course of the following year. Specifically, those who watched television news exhibited declines in social trust and those who read newspapers exhibited increased social trust between fall 2001 and late summer 2002. The authors conclude by discussing how coverage in fall 2001 and changes in coverage over the following year may help to explain these results.